On Definitions of Abortion and Intention

This past fall, a student in the back of the room where I was conducting Q & A raised her hand. When I called on her, she said, “I have issues with your definition of abortion. It does not appear to be THE definition.”

I responded, “Let’s review, I offered a definition at the beginning of this talk to be clear what I meant when I used the term abortion in this discussion. Definitions are important in any dialogue to avoid apparent disagreements. We want to have actual disagreements where we agree on the definition of the terms and disagree on a propositional statement, a statement which is either true or false. I said, for the purposes of this discussion, abortion is the intentional destruction of an early human life to end a pregnancy. I made a further claim that abortion is the unjust destruction of an innocent human life. That claim required two primary defenses:

1) Embryonic and fetal humans are full members of the human family.

a. Scientifically, from the moment a human being comes into existence at the completion of the fertilization process it is a whole and distinct human life.

b. Philosophically, the best explanation for our shared intuition of universal human dignity is that our value is grounded in our shared humanity. All other capacities or characteristics are too episodic or degreed to ground something universally shared among the whole human family.

2) Bodily autonomy arguments concede the full humanity of the embryonic and fetal human beings. They concede they are one of us but claim that abortion is justifiable homicide. I countered that, according to pro-choice philosopher and legal scholar Kate Greasley, nothing about the normal experience of pregnancy rises to the level of threat necessary to qualify induced abortion as justifiable homicide.1

a. Justifiable homicide requires that the response is both proportional and necessary. Taking a human life for matters of convenience satisfies neither standard.

We have discussed this as a group for two hours, and you claim now, at the very end of our time together and after failing to demonstrate either the inhumanity of the unborn or make a case abortion is justifiable homicide, you just don’t like the definition we have been using all day. What alternative definition would you offer?”

She pulled out her phone and told me “the AMA defines abortion as a medical procedure to safely and intentionally terminate a pregnancy.”2

I asked her, “So do you think that is a better definition in a discussion of the moral nature of abortion?”

She responded, “That is just THE definition. You gave us a bad definition.”

“No, I think you are confused about how different groups establish different definitions for different purposes. Because we are talking about the morality of abortion, I offered a clarifying definition on what I meant when I used the term. We were discussing that definition. The CDC offers a different definition in explaining how they collect their data on the number of induced abortion across the United States every year. They define abortion as “an intervention performed within the limits of state and jurisdiction law by a licensed clinician (for instance, a physician, nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) intended to terminate a suspected or known intrauterine pregnancy and that does not result in a live birth.”3 They use a definition that clarifies for their audience what they collect data on and what they do not. Which brings me back to the AMA definition you offered, do you think it is helpful or clarifying? A medical procedure to safely and intentionally terminate a pregnancy.”

She got a little flustered and repeated, “That is just THE definition. I don’t understand what you are asking.”

I nodded, “OK. A medical procedure to safely and intentionally terminate a pregnancy is vague, and probably deliberately so. In the definition I offered, the destruction of the early human life was intentional. The CDC definition also includes intent, though it leaves out the nascent human life and focuses on avoiding confusion by including induced labor and spontaneous abortion in their statistics. The AMA definition includes intention, but only broadly stating the intent to terminate a pregnancy or end a pregnancy. The problem with that definition as you offered it is it obfuscates. Terminating a pregnancy could include induced abortion, our topic of discussion today. It could also include miscarriage care and induced labor. All three could fall into the category of a medical procedure to intentionally terminate a pregnancy. Here is why clarity on what is intended matters.

Let’s say we have three different women: Alice, Alison, and Alecia. All three women killed someone else’s dog today. If that was all we knew about them, then all we know is they are all dog killers. But let’s look at their situations a little more closely.

1. Alice is a veterinarian. An elderly dog she has provided loving medical care for over the years was brought in and is suffering. The family agrees to euthanize their pet. Alice injects life ending drugs into the dog as the owner/mother lovingly holds her dog one last time.

2. Alison is driving through a residential neighborhood. She is not excessively speeding though she may have drifted over the 25-mph speed limit. She noticed three kids sitting on the right side of the road on the curb hanging out. She does not notice their family dog running towards the kids from her left. She runs over the dog and feels terrible continuing to have nightmares for weeks.

3. Alecia struggles with fantasies about hurting people. One day, she is home alone and notices the neighbor’s dog in her backyard. She grabs her brother’s baseball bat, lures the dog to her, and kills it.

All three killed someone else’s dog, but were they all the same? They are all undeniably dog killers, but are they all morally illicit dog killers? No. Why? Intent. Alice intended to help the dog, to relieve the suffering of an elderly animal whose suffering was incapable of producing any moral benefit or growth. Alison had no intention toward the dog at all but had a terrible unintended accident. Alecia intended harm, intended to kill displaying psychopathic traits and exhibiting red flags of a personality building toward more dangerous behavior. Intention matters.”

The definition you offered obfuscates the connection between intentions and outcomes. The termination of pregnancy is intended, but details matter. Destroying another human life to terminate pregnancy is dramatically different from inducing labor to terminate a pregnancy, though both are technically a medical procedure. So let me put the question to you directly, how does an induced abortion terminate pregnancy?”

She looked angry now, “Abortion just terminates pregnancy. That is what is what an abortion is.”

“And this is why clarifying definitions are necessary. You defend abortion, but you don’t want to articulate what you defend. Without acknowledging that induced abortion is, the intentional destruction of a nascent human life for the purpose of ending pregnancy and avoiding the consequences of childbirth, a true moral disagreement is impossible. I am standing here ready to wrestle with every hard aspect of the inclusive view of human value which condemns induced abortion as immoral while you a hide behind an AMA definition that only serves to muddy the water. There is no THE DEFINITION. There is only honest dialogue requiring all parties to agree upon terms to confront true disagreement on morally important issues which arise in human community. Definitions ought to clarify, and intentions matter.”